What is the evidence for ID again? That life is to complicated to happen without a "designer"?

I've yet to see any facts disputing AG's post listing the evidence that supports abiogenesis, just a bunch of wishy washy, "anything is possible" BS.

What I find most funny is you cling to your "belief" of a designer. Yet have no problem chiding posters on their "beliefs".

You are not the middle of the road, objective agnostic you claim to be. Stop the BS. You are a troll, and don't have the balls to argue for any position that makes you wrong. Instead you pretend to be "objective" with your passive-aggressive-super-duper-agnostic nonsense.

You really don't even have an argument. Because with your position everything is possible.

AND more important please list the evidence for ID.

Chicken,

Thanks for the thoughtless drive by ad hom post. Let the adults talk for a while, we'll call you.

I'm just not attached to a poorly supported supposition, either ID or Abiogenesis, both of which are poorly supported with current data. Neither has been observed. Neither has convincing evidence, unless the person being convince really wants to be convinced, like yourself for example.

Thanks for the thoughtless drive by ad hom post. Let the adults talk for a while, we'll call you.

I'm just not attached to a poorly supported supposition, either ID or Abiogenesis, both of which are poorly supported with current data. Neither has been observed. Neither has convincing evidence, unless the person being convince really wants to be convinced, like yourself for example.

Oh well, faith happens.

You have dodged AG's post. You did not put forth any meaningful rebuttal, you completely ignored it.

And for the love of god. IT'S NOT ABOUT CONVINCING YOU, get our yourself. It's about evidence. And we are still waiting for you to list yours for ID.

What is the evidence for ID again?

You are certainly attached to a position. Which is ID. Stop pretending to be some super-agnostic.

__________________

Quote:

...don't give yourselves to these unnatural men, machine men, with machine minds and machine hearts! You are not machines! You are not cattle! You are men!..

Charlie Chaplin -

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Again, making it in a lab doesn't really convince me of anything. Amino acids are a very far piece away from making life.

I really don't know what would be convincing. Both ID and Abiogenesis are wildly remote possibilities, with firm believers on both sides of the debate. I still have no problem deciding on what to have for lunch without solving that little dilemma on a daily basis.

I can comfortably live in the present without picking sides on that one.

You may minimize the evidence that I laid out in message 970, but it exists. You may focus on the gaps, but it is still a degree of evidence.

What, even modest, evidence is there on the side of Creation that puts it on even footing with science? It's a rhetorical question, so you don't need to bother dancing around it. I know there isn't any, but you adhere to your 50/50 position with ardor and faith. That's okay, I'm planning on Chipotle for lunch tomorrow, and it doesn't factor into the decision.

Of course, what does factor into the decision is whether I can get out of the hotel in the Kansas City area. At least God/religion warned us of the blizzards and snow storms.

What is the evidence for ID again? That life is to complicated to happen without a "designer"?

I've yet to see any facts disputing AG's post listing the evidence that supports abiogenesis, just a bunch of wishy washy, "anything is possible" BS.

What I find most funny is you cling to your "belief" of a designer. Yet have no problem chiding posters on their "beliefs".

You are not the middle of the road, objective agnostic you claim to be. Stop the BS. You are a troll, and don't have the balls to argue for any position that makes you wrong. Instead you pretend to be "objective" with your passive-aggressive-super-duper-agnostic nonsense.

You really don't even have an argument. Because with your position everything is possible.

AND more important please list the evidence for ID.

He reminds me a lot of the hippy girl Storm from Tim Minchin's beatnik poem. I wouldn't be surprised if he even had a fairy tattooed above his ass. And for some strange reason I always read his posts in the voice of Mr. Herbert from Family Guy.

The problem is that there is no such thing as a very simple creature that is capable of maintaining homeostasis and replication.

Who says having both is the initial bar that needs to be hurdled? Do you really think it's impossible for one or the other to have come first, and the other later? Can you prove it?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

So you reject evidence when it counters your faith, and you are willing to accept an incredulous claim with no evidence when it supports your faith. That is why I made my earlier "zero credibility" remark.

-ArtificialGrape

What evidence do you have that life occurred spontaneously?

It works both ways. Your faith is founded on the premise that there is no God. You are willing to accept any outrageous claim with no evidence to support it as long as it is in harmony with your agenda.

Beyond that you are willing to twist and caricature and demean anyone that does not agree with you based on your premise that God does not exist.

__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

You have dodged AG's post. You did not put forth any meaningful rebuttal, you completely ignored it.

And for the love of god. IT'S NOT ABOUT CONVINCING YOU, get our yourself. It's about evidence. And we are still waiting for you to list yours for ID.

What is the evidence for ID again?

You are certainly attached to a position. Which is ID. Stop pretending to be some super-agnostic.

Well if it makes you feel better to delude yourself, there's no need for me to dissuade you from your intentionally fictitious claims about me designed to distract from your own evangelical nature.

There is no "evidence". There is supposition. Suppose it all came together on its own. Look, zapping man made primordial soup making tiny pieces vaguely similar to parts of a complex machine is not evidence. Neither is recognizing the improbability of all the right pieces being in all the right places on a tiny scale, correctly assembled, with no missing or extra parts, all cooperating, by someone or something.

There is no real evidence for ID or Abiogenesis. They are both fantastic claims without convincing evidence. There is a lack of evidence for either claim, although both sides argue there is evidence, both seem to need to believe one way or the other.

I know you feel a strong need to believe in abiogenesis to the exclusion of all other possibilities. I get where you are coming from.

My faith in God is not founded on unproven theories. It is founded on my personal experience and study of the Bible.

My personal experience and study of the Bible have led me to the conclusion that God does exist. It is this understanding that leads me to accept or reject the philosophies that abound with half baked evidence that evolution is the basis for life and the basis for the creation of man.

It is interesting that mans first encounter with satan included flawed philosophy mixed with truth and supposition. Man did not fare well with the philosophy.

Genesis 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
Genesis 3:2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:
Genesis 3:3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
Genesis 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die:
Genesis 3:5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

The tree was not apparently poisonous and Eve could not see any apparent reason why it should be bad to eat. satan presented his philosophy along with ascribing a hidden agenda to God and a promise of them becoming more enhanced by the increased knowledge of good and evil.

Nothing has really changed. Same philosophy and demeaning of Gods purposes and character.

__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

An example is the powder river coal in Montana. It seems these deposits of coal defy explanation by scientists because they do not fit in with the accepted non-flood theories .

Funny, I can't find one single article that views Powder River coal as evidence of a global flood that *isn't* a Christian apologetics website. Got any peer-reviewed science articles that also promote that position?

My faith in God is not founded on unproven theories. It is founded on my personal experience and study of the Bible.

My personal experience and study of the Bible have led me to the conclusion that God does exist. It is this understanding that leads me to accept or reject the philosophies that abound with half baked evidence that evolution is the basis for life and the basis for the creation of man.

What evidence would be sufficient for you to accept evolution as the "basis for life and the basis for the creation of man"?

Quote:

It is interesting that mans first encounter with satan included flawed philosophy mixed with truth and supposition. Man did not fare well with the philosophy.

How did man's first encounter with Loki go?

Quote:

The tree was not apparently poisonous and Eve could not see any apparent reason why it should be bad to eat. satan presented his philosophy along with ascribing a hidden agenda to God and a promise of them becoming more enhanced by the increased knowledge of good and evil.

What did Satan say in the story that was untrue?

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

What evidence would be sufficient for you to accept evolution as the "basis for life and the basis for the creation of man"?

What did Satan say in the story that was untrue?

If you want to convince me that life can occur spontaneously then take a test tube full of whatever basic chemicals you prefer and produce new life in it. This gives you the advantage over nature which may not have everything in the correct proportions or present at all. If you can't do it in a lab, how do you expect me to believe that it can happen by itself?

satan directly contradicted God's word by declaring the opposite as true. "You shall not surely die". Death has come upon all men through Adam and Eve. Being human now leads to the eventual demise of everyone.

__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

An example is the powder river coal in Montana. It seems these deposits of coal defy explanation by scientists because they do not fit in with the accepted non-flood theories .

When you regurgitate creationist nonsense that's been debunked for decades, how seriously do you expect your arguments should be considered?

When the only reference provided is to a supposed article in an obscure (if it even exists) magazine with no author information, why would anyone give it weight in the face of all the scientific work that reaches a contrary conclusion?

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

And they didn't. God claimed, "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." But, as the Bible reports, "And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth: And the days of Adam after he had begotten Seth were eight hundred years: and he begat sons and daughters: And all the days that Adam lived were nine hundred and thirty years: and he died.[/QUOTE] That doesn't seem like "in the day" to me. Apparently, God was lying and the serpent told the truth.

Quote:

Death has come upon all men through Adam and Eve. Being human now leads to the eventual demise of everyone.

But if Adam and Eve hadn't eaten of the tree and gotten kicked out of the garden, no other humans would have ever existed. Is non-existence better than existence in your estimation?

BTW, what kind of jerk sticks something in the middle of a place naive people are living and then tells them not to touch it?

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."

When you regurgitate creationist nonsense that's been debunked for decades, how seriously do you expect your arguments should be considered?

When the only reference provided is to a supposed article in an obscure (if it even exists) magazine with no author information, why would anyone give it weight in the face of all the scientific work that reaches a contrary conclusion?

I am still waiting for you to produce life under the best conditions that you can. What is your excuse for not producing something that you say can happen all by itself?

__________________
Vic Hays

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved.

I am still waiting for you to produce life under the best conditions that you can. What is your excuse for not producing something that you say can happen all by itself?

The same excuse for not producing airplanes before 1903, and not producing home computers before 1975. We haven't gotten there yet. Would you have concluded flight was impossible in 1902 or the internet couldn't possibly exist in 1974?

More to the point, did I ever claim to be able to produce life? I simply asked what would be convincing evidence in your mind, so we could set the goalposts as it were.

One other thing, were you providing that link as evidence of the Flood or as evidence against abiogenesis? Those are two very different things and it seems odd that your response to a lack of evidence for the first is to attack the second.

__________________
"Pain, or damage, don't end the world. Or despair. Or beatin's. The world ends when you're dead. Until then, you've got more punishment in store. Stand it like a man, and give some back."